Dangerous cache? (GC294YV)

[I!]

Cache GC294YV opened recently. It's a small tupperware box placed on the outside of a bridge over a lane of traffic, held in place by being partially tucked in to a wire mesh that stretches across the bridge some two feet or so below the top. To get it, you have to reach over (safe enough for adults) and stretch, whilst hoping not to distract the oncoming traffic and absolutely praying not to fumble the cache and so drop it onto a car.

 

The cache has met with some very favourable comments, but I'm not so sure. I posted a note explaining why I thought it could put drivers (and nearby pedestrians) at risk, but the cache owner deleted that and PM'd me to say just what he thought of my intervention.

 

Just thought I'd ask here ... am I being over-cautious?

[+AuntieWeasel]

Not if you logged the cache, no. Truly over-cautious people like myself don't do caches that give them the vapors.

 

Not unless somebody dares me to.

[+buttaskotch]

If you found the cache, like you did. Then its fair game to say what you feel.

Its sounds like a lot of fun, however I know this type of cache placement would not fly here in US and would be archived immediately; many areas prohibit caches from being placed on bridges.

Perhaps your local reviewer didn't know that it was on a bridge? Maybe the cacher, who in all fairness is a noobie, didn't know that caches like this are frowned upon?

[+dfx]

gotta agree that if there's a danger of the cache falling onto the traffic, it's not a good location.

[+The Ravens]

Other than the US rule of no caches on bridges the only thing I don't like about the idea is that the container could be dropped onto a oncoming car potently going throw a windshield (that's windscreen to our British friends).

[Mr.Yuck]

Well, it's pretty much newb hide. Probably not the greatest location for a cache, but it doesn't sound horrifically dangerous or anything. This is a footpath bridge going over this road, I assume?

[+briansnat]

gotta agree that if there's a danger of the cache falling onto the traffic, it's not a good location.

 

I agree. Bad idea. No good could come of it and the downside is quite steep. What if a motorist is injured or heaven forbid, killed?

[+StarBrand]

Seems to be a violation of the guidelines - not for danger but rather for being on a highway bridge. At any rate if you feel strongly that it should not be there - post a NA log on it and the the reviewers hash it over.

 

The reviewers job is not to determine the hazards or dangerous involved in any cache.

[knowschad]

If what you say about the cache is accurate, then I'd say that this is much different from the typical "This cache is too dangerous" threads that we see here, in that you are referring to the dangers of someone other than the cacher getting hurt, and not the cachers themselves. I wouldn't be concerned so much about the drivers getting distracted (they shouldn't get distracted enough to be dangerous if, say, the highway dept were painting the side of the bridge, should they?) but if the cache should fall on a driver's windshield it could be startling enough to cause trouble, I'd think.

[+dfx]

Seems to be a violation of the guidelines - not for danger but rather for being on a highway bridge.

that only applies to US caches AFAIK

[+va griz]

Going only by what's presented here, it sounds like a bad idea. Not because of the danger to the cacher, that's his/her choice. Rather it's the danger to geocaching's reputation when* a muggle, who did not have a say in the matter, gets a windshield/screen full of tupperware.

 

*I say when, not if, because Murphy's law applies to caches too. Sooner or later every container will be dropped.

[+va griz]

Wow, you folks are fast. OK, I'm pretty slow at typing too. I'll leave it even though it's repeating the same concerns.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I would have to see pictures before I could make a determination.

The mesh that runs along side of bridges is placed there to prevent items from being dropped off the bridge, in my experience.

So without seeing the location wouldn't it stand to reason that the cache would not fall into traffic?

[knowschad]

I would have to see pictures before I could make a determination.

The mesh that runs along side of bridges is placed there to prevent items from being dropped off the bridge, in my experience.

So without seeing the location wouldn't it stand to reason that the cache would not fall into traffic?

Google's Street View will show you the bridge. I couldn't see the cache, though (great camo! )

[I!]

I would have to see pictures before I could make a determination.

Good call re the picture -- will take photographic evidence to the review team if it's needed ...

 

... which it might not be since CO has just PM'd to say he'll move it "asap". Great!

 

Thanks, all.

[+cw1710]

Why does everyone say it is against the guidelines to place them under bridges?

 

Caches near, on or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These may include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports.

 

It doesn't say no bridges period. A bridge out on a 2 lane country highway is not going to be a terrorist target so I would doubt that it would be deemed a target. I have always read that to mean major bridges and landmark bridges.

 

As far as this one goes, I agree that if there is danger to cars below then it is bad, but like someone else said if that wire mesh is there to catch stuff then why the worries?

[+briansnat]

gotta agree that if there's a danger of the cache falling onto the traffic, it's not a good location.

 

I agree. Bad idea. No good could come of it and the downside is quite steep. What if a motorist is injured or heaven forbid, killed?

Edited June 1, 2010 by briansnat

[I!]

As far as this one goes, I agree that if there is danger to cars below then it is bad, but like someone else said if that wire mesh is there to catch stuff then why the worries?

Ah yes, I forgot to answer that. The mesh is pulled tight-ish across the bridge the whole way across, leaving only an inch-or-so's gap. Can't see the point of it myself except to hold cache boxes tucked-in! I think CO now appreciates the risk and, as I noted previously, has PM'd to say he'll move it. I'll keep watching just in case.

 

Thanks again for the advice.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I would have to see pictures before I could make a determination.

The mesh that runs along side of bridges is placed there to prevent items from being dropped off the bridge, in my experience.

So without seeing the location wouldn't it stand to reason that the cache would not fall into traffic?

Google's Street View will show you the bridge. I couldn't see the cache, though (great camo! )

I tried it but it wont let me look at St Pauls Rd, Swindon Rd is the closest I can get. According to every map I have checked it on, it seems to be at the south end of the bridge on the east side. I cant tell what the location is over but it does not appear to be street.

If it is above the street and can fall through to it then I am inclined to say it needs to be moved to a position where it not not be traffic a hazard, but I see no evidence to suggest it is.

[+wimseyguy]

Seems to be a violation of the guidelines - not for danger but rather for being on a highway bridge. At any rate if you feel strongly that it should not be there - post a NA log on it and the the reviewers hash it over.

 

The reviewers job is not to determine the hazards or dangerous involved in any cache.

You are correct about the danger aspect. The words danger and safety do not appear anywhere in the guidelines. Each cacher must define their own comfort level.

 

But I wonder where you got the idea it was a highway bridge? The OP doesn't say this, and the google map links on the cache page don't show it as one either. It appears to be a pedestrian walkway or an old rail line? that passes over St. Pauls Rd. I expect the mesh is there to protect cars below from things being dropped on them, so this probably isn't a wise placement if the possibility of the cache being dropped exists.

The bing maps are even better than the google one here.

 

Guideline violation-no

Poor cache location-perhaps

Edited June 1, 2010 by wimseyguy

[+Graculus]

In view of the additional information now available about this cache and a potentially dangerous location I've temporarily disabled it and contacted the cache owner.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer - geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources http://www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books http://support.Groundspeak.com//index.php

Edited June 1, 2010 by Graculus

[DannyCaffeine]

That is a really DUMB place for a cache.

[+mchaos]

Other than the US rule of no caches on bridges the only thing I don't like about the idea is that the container could be dropped onto a oncoming car potently going throw a windshield (that's windscreen to our British friends).

 

Seems to be a violation of the guidelines - not for danger but rather for being on a highway bridge.

that only applies to US caches AFAIK

 

Why does everyone say it is against the guidelines to place them under bridges?

 

Caches near, on or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These may include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports.

 

It doesn't say no bridges period. A bridge out on a 2 lane country highway is not going to be a terrorist target so I would doubt that it would be deemed a target. I have always read that to mean major bridges and landmark bridges.

 

As far as this one goes, I agree that if there is danger to cars below then it is bad, but like someone else said if that wire mesh is there to catch stuff then why the worries?

 

in the guidelines it states first "Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not exhaustive):"

 

Then the last bullet point is "Caches near, on or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These may include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports."

 

And after that it states: "There may be some exceptions. If your cache fits within one of the above areas, please explain this in a note to the reviewer. If you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache page for the benefit of both the reviewer and people seeking out the cache."

 

Meaning that a bridge hid is OKAY considering the bridge, container and other variables. Obviously if some one wanted to hide a cache in a horrible leaky pvc container, that would be a bad idea and it should be archived and the cache removed immediately, or one place on a super busy bridge on an interstate. But if its a magnetic key box on a bridge on a sparsely traveled road, then I would say that's perfectly OKAY. There is no said "rule" that states you cannot hide caches on bridges. I have found many. All were safe.

 

That's why we have rules, and a good community policing its self for things like the cache in question.

Edited June 1, 2010 by mchaos

[I!]

In view of the additional information now available about this cache and a potentially dangerous location I've temporarily disabled it and contacted the cache owner.

Oops ... I should not have underestimated the omnipresent attention of the review team!

 

Here's hoping this won't make me public enemy #1. ( Top five I can live with, though )

[+mchaos]

In view of the additional information now available about this cache and a potentially dangerous location I've temporarily disabled it and contacted the cache owner.

Oops ... I should not have underestimated the omnipresent attention of the review team!

 

Here's hoping this won't make me public enemy #1. ( Top five I can live with, though )

No way! Keeping geocaching safe is key in keeping the game going. I don't want to see it in a newspaper some accident cause by geocahers who dropped a container into moving traffic because of a poorly placed cache.

 

I would do the same thing. Geocaching is self policing. It is up to its members to make sure its kept safe and to guide lines.

[+dbrierley]

On a satellite view, the coordinates are at the green/downward arrow. Allowing for a few feet of error, the cache could be over traffic.

[Hazelette]

A bridge out on a 2 lane country highway is not going to be a terrorist target so I would doubt that it would be deemed a target. I have always read that to mean major bridges and landmark bridges.

Yeah, but the people who live near these lonely 2 lane bridges will not see it that way. Believe me, I live in a rural area and sometimes I just want to smack people around here. Hyper-vigilance is good, common sense is great... unfortunately, a lot of people lack common sense.

[+cw1710]

A bridge out on a 2 lane country highway is not going to be a terrorist target so I would doubt that it would be deemed a target. I have always read that to mean major bridges and landmark bridges.

Yeah, but the people who live near these lonely 2 lane bridges will not see it that way. Believe me, I live in a rural area and sometimes I just want to smack people around here. Hyper-vigilance is good, common sense is great... unfortunately, a lot of people lack common sense.

The people who live near them don't matter. It's not their bridge or their property under it (most of the time). I too am from a rural area on a two lane road and none of the people in that area care. They would enjoy watching people hunt it. But I agree, a lof of people lack common sense.

[Hazelette]

A bridge out on a 2 lane country highway is not going to be a terrorist target so I would doubt that it would be deemed a target. I have always read that to mean major bridges and landmark bridges.

Yeah, but the people who live near these lonely 2 lane bridges will not see it that way. Believe me, I live in a rural area and sometimes I just want to smack people around here. Hyper-vigilance is good, common sense is great... unfortunately, a lot of people lack common sense.

The people who live near them don't matter. It's not their bridge or their property under it (most of the time). I too am from a rural area on a two lane road and none of the people in that area care. They would enjoy watching people hunt it. But I agree, a lof of people lack common sense.

No, I mean the terrorist target part. Its amazing how many local yokels think terrorists are going to strike right in their little no-name town. Or I might be jaded in that I had to move back to small town America due to the economy after living in a urban area.

 

FORMAT EDIT

Edited June 2, 2010 by Hazelette